June 18, 2009 - Washington – Leading agricultural and environmental academics and economists continue to raise concerns about the controversial theory of indirect land use change (ILUC) currently being applied to biofuels. Specifically, many believe that the policy has gotten far out ahead of the science and could be detrimental to the development of biofuels. The latest comes from Dr. Robert Wisner, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University.

“The amount of indirect land use change needed for biofuels and ways of measuring resulting emissions impacts from land-use changes are being intensely debated. Longer-term technological changes that bring increased crop yields per acre, changes in livestock and poultry feed conversion efficiency that reduce feed needs per animal, the amount of crop residue left on soils, and other factors will affect indirect land use emissions. Much more research is needed on these issues to accurately measure indirect land use impacts. Also, direct emissions from biofuels refineries are being reduced over time through technological advances,” Wisner writes in his latest study available here.

As you will recall, ILUC is the theory that supposes any crop, such as corn, used in American biofuel production must be made up in various parts of the world. Often, this theory assumes the land needed to replace these crops comes from virgin land or the clearing of rainforests. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to institutionalize this theory as part of its proposed rule for the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Recently, the state of California’s Air Resource Board (CARB) adopted a low carbon fuel standard that applied this theory to biofuels at the exclusion of all other fuel sources, including petroleum.

Wisner addresses CARB’s faulty decision by stating:

“A key determinant of ethanol’s disadvantage in the California motor fuel market is the estimated indirect land use impact. There is considerable disagreement in the scientific community on how to accurately assess this impact and to what extent this factor is needed. The U.S. historically has had large grain surplus production capacity as productivity increases from new technology have outpaced food and feed demand growth. Along with a number of other considerations, future prospects for productivity in grain production needs to be included in the assessment, along with probable future technological improvements in energy efficiency of ethanol production.”

Wisner’s concerns echo those raised by 111 scientists and PhDs earlier this year in a letter to CARB on its proposal. In addition, Wisner also joins with leading biofuel academics like Dr. Bruce Dale of Michigan State University and professors at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in questioning the rush to include ILUC in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels.

Wisner concludes, “Scientists and economists are not in universal agreement on ways of measuring this [ILUC] impact. Much more research is needed before universally acceptable indirect land use impact assessments are available. With the rapid rate at which GHG emissions policy is moving forward, there is an urgent need for more research on indirect land use impacts.”

The Renewable Fuels Association has been very active combating this flawed notion of ILUC. To that end, the RFA has been leading the ethanol industry’s response to both CARB and EPA. A presentation on this issue prepared by the RFA can be found here.

More information on this issue and the concerns raised by RFA and others can be found here.